Skip to main content

About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
get the consequences. >> let's take a look at the president talking about susan rice, the u.n. ambassador who many think he will nominate to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state. >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> paul: kim, that sure sounds like a president who is ready to nominate susan rice for the state department and my sources suggest that that's exactly what he's going to do. of course, my source haves been wrong before, but if-- and i've been wrong before. but if he does that, is this going to be a really big fight? >> oh, it's going be to be a huge fight because you have had republicans come out already and say, you drop her in the senate nomination battle and then we are going to go to the wall on this one, but i do believe you're right, not only is the president taking an unusual step of devoting during the press conference, but all types of forums to defend susan rice and make the c
the president up at the u.n. talk about the video. i think the talk of the video probably meant more people in the middle east watched the video that didn't even know the video was there. we now hear that general petraeus said they believe that the c.i.a., that this was a terrorist attack, al-qaeda. so who changed the talking points? it's hard for me to believe that attorney general holder never said anything to the chief of staff at the white house, never said anything to john brennan, who was the top advisor for the president with regard to in the issue and john brennan was at the c.i.a. for many, many years. so there is no information that you can really gather. and i think the congress has a right to know, but more importantly, i think the american people have to know. if you don't have a select committee that has broad-based bipartisan, they'll never find out. had you not had a watergate committee, the nixon administration was lying to the american people. they were lying to the american people and if you go back and look at it and had there not been a broad based committee of bipartis
gaza yesterday and prepared to mediate a truce. u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon is expected to visit next week. the widening scope of the assault sparking fears of a violent new chapter in the arab israeli conflict. forces are launching rockets back and forth in the gaza strip and israel. yesterday one missile was aimed right at jerusalem. nbc news foreign correspondent is live for us in gaza. that jerusalem angle, that had not been seen for quite some time. let's get to what's happening right now around you. >> good morning, alex. yeah, we can -- let me bring you up to date on the air strikes here. according to palestinian health officials the death toll from israel's three-day attacks on gaza has risen to 40 palestinians killed, among them eight children, two women, and according to palestinian military factions, including the military wing, there were four palestinian fighters that were killed overnight. so there's no indication, really, that the violence is slowing down. you talk about the incident that took place with rockets landing near jerusalem and near tel aviv. that is cer
. >> reporter: but that's not what the white house was saying, including u.s. ambassador to the u.n., susan rice, who went on television days after the attack, tying it to protests in egypt against an anti-muslim video. but petraeus also told lawmakers that by the time declassified talking points were given to the white house and congress, references to al qaeda were edited out to protect classified source. what rice said on tv was consistent with those edited and declassified talking points. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. >> reporter: the white house says that the intelligence community did the editing and a senior u.s. intelligence official tells abc news tonight that there was no political interference whatsoever. but as you can imagine, diane, some republicans on capitol hill say they are not convinced. >> thank you so much, jon. and as you know, a few blocks away at the white house, president obama met today with top congressional leaders about working together on that loo
mention of al qaeda was edited out of unclassified talking points prepared for u.n. ambassador susan rice when she appeared on face the nation five days after the attack. according to peter king, how that happened is a mystery. >> nobody knows who came up with the final version of the talking points other than to say the original talking points prepared by the c.i.a. were different from the ones that were finally put out. >> reporter: that final version of the talking points said ichere are indications that extremists participated in the assault." abland description of what t telligence judged to be a terrorist attack involving extremists with links to al qaeda. tonight, the white house issued a statement denying it played ro role in editing out those two loaded terms "terrorism" and "al qaeda." ro mason: david martin. thank you, david. an oil rig exploded in flames in nke gulf of mexico. two workers are missing and 11 were hospitalized. d.e rig is located off louisiana 80 miles from where deep's deepwater horizon exploded and collapsed in 2010, unleashing the worst accidental oil spill i
-- ambassador to the u.n. we were misled. we were all believing what she said. we all thought this -- >> hold on a second, hold on a second here. when you say misled, that is a politicized term. there was nothing deliberate about this. unless you believe that general petraeus and the deputy director, now acting director morell, and the dni director were in on some conspiracy, they were doing their job. and, yes, they got it wrong. >> you're missing the point. i'm dealing with the news here as we get it. i don't like rolling disclosure. at some point he got the full story. why didn't he come forward -- why did he have to be dragged into that hearing room today and put before both committees to get the truth? why are we only getting the clarification today? why didn't he as cia director go to the president, the public ought to know what happened. why didn't he do that? >> the intelligence community put forward the assessments that gave us a clear assessment and debunked the idea there was a protest. you can accuse them of being too slow to do that, and we have asked them exactly these questions
. and it contradicts u.n. ambassador susan rice, who five days after the attack made the rounds on all five sunday talk shows. remember, she was pushing the position that violence was in reaction to a youtube video. what make this is scandal potentially historic in its reach and effect is the role of the president in all of this. now every day, as more evidence comes out, it is becoming more special more clear that barack obama had to know that there was mounting evidence that al qaeda was involve in this attack and that the anti-islamic video had nothing to do with the murder of ambassador stevens and three others, long before obama continued to point blame at the 13-minute youtube video. think about it this way f. obama's cia director knew almost instantaneously that an al qaeda-affiliated group was responsible for the attack and the station chief in libya reported to washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants. and if email shows that the officials at the white house and state department were advised two hours after the attack that an islamic militant g
of the obama administration, he decided to make the u.n. ambassador a cabinet level position. when you're cabinet secretary, you have some obligation to perform your duties and then to be held responsible for them and accountable for them. i appreciate that he's loyal to her and she is loyal to him that he defended her, but i do think that the senators have legitimate reasons to question whether or not she should be the secretary of state. >> greg: yeah. i don't think that's going to happen. but what do i know? >> not much. >> greg: thank you very much for coming here and providing some mediocre information. plenty more ahead. i joke, little person. "the factor" moves along, the most troubling story of the night. the end of twinkies and wonder bread as hostess plans to shut down after union strike crip ams its production. ben stein will be here with the story in a few moments [ male announcer ] every day, thousands of people like you, are choosing advilĀ® because helps you keep doing what you love. no wonder it's america's #1 selling pain reliever. you took action, you took advilĀ®. a
question today, today the talking points that were given to u.n. ambassador susan rice after the benghazi attack, those talking points were published. >> yes. >> and if those talking points are what she was given to say, she hued essentially exactly to what she was briefed to say by the intelligence agency. so on the matter of her and whether she's the architect of the great coverup and can't be secretary of state and all these other things, i felt like today that settled it factually. >> i absolutely think it settled it factually but i also think -- i guess i want to distinguish between two different trends that happened in the modern republican party. there's this conspiracy mongering and this believing your own ridiculousness that i think happens. dick morris was calling into that agenda 21 briefing. down in georgia. i mean the guy -- that's a fairly prominent person in the american right these days. >> herding us in to the point with them. >> right. so there's that at one end. then there's the nihilistic obstruction. and the war on susan rice seems to be more in that latter category.
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)